3. Mrs Y complains that DWP has failed to appropriately consider the extent of the procedural failures, delays, and distress she says she experienced when it took too long to deal with her 2023 State Pension claim.
4. She says this has caused her increased stress and put her in an uncertain financial position.
5. Mrs Y would like to know whether DWP handled her case appropriately, consider an increased payment of £2,000 and assess the systemic issues she believes caused her complaint to arise.
6. Mrs Y submitted a State Pension claim to DWP. It received this at the beginning of October 2023. DWP told her at the beginning of March 2024 that she did not qualify for this as she did not have enough years of National Insurance (NI) contributions.
7. In the interim period, DWP gave Mrs Y several different timescales within which she could expect its decision. None of these were met.
8. Following DWP’s decision to reject her claim, Mrs Y asked it towards the end of March to give her some information about making voluntary NI contributions. It gave her this at the end of June. Again, it had given Mrs Y different incorrect timescales in the meantime.
9. DWP acknowledged that it had taken longer than it should to respond to Mrs Y’s claim and request for information. It also accepted that it had given her incorrect timescales. DWP apologised for this and made a payment of £100.
10. When ICE looked at the complaint at Mrs Y’s request, it considered this was an appropriate sum. She disagrees and feels £2,000 would more accurately reflect the impact on her.
13. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
14. Mrs Y complains that DWP has failed to appropriately consider the extent of the procedural failures, delays, and distress she says she experienced when it took too long to deal with her 2023 State Pension claim. She thinks the £100 DWP has paid her is not enough and asks for £2,000.
15. DWP’s guidance ‘Financial Redress for Maladministration’ (DWP’s Guidance) sets out how it should make consolatory payments. They say that a payment of this nature can be made ‘where the customer has suffered injustice or hardship arising from maladministration’. It also says such payments usually range between £50 and £500.
16. We take a proportionate approach to complaints like Mrs Y’s where a second-tier organisation has already considered the matter and provided its view. We do not tend to re-do the work the second tier has done but look at what the remaining issues are after it has done this.
17. DWP received Mrs Y’s claim in October 2023 and provided a response to this in March 2024. In the interim, it told her in November, seven weeks after receiving the claim, that it was taking around 12 weeks to respond. DWP told Mrs Y to allow another eight weeks at that time.
18. In January 2024 DWP told Mrs Y it had not yet made a decision and that it usually takes three to four months to do this. It invited her to call back in a month for a further update.
19. DWP told Mrs Y in February that it was waiting for information from Ireland about any NI contributions made during her employment there. Mrs Y had not worked during her time in Ireland and is unhappy that DWP delayed processing her claim without checking this with her first.
20. Following this, DWP rejected Mrs Y’s claim in March. There seems to be no dispute that this took longer than it should have done. When ICE considered the complaint, it explained that, although DWP took five months to provide its decision, the delay was only a month longer than the expected time (four months).
21. Mrs Y went on to ask DWP in March for information about making voluntary NI contributions. It gave her this information in June. When she made her request, it made her aware that there would be a delay in doing this.
22. She called DWP chasing the information in May and was told she would receive an email within a week. This did not happen so she complained to her MP in June who forwarded it to DWP the same day. A week later, DWP provided the information she had asked for.
23. When ICE considered the complaint, it agreed DWP had told Mrs Y in May that she would receive the information within a week but that it took five weeks to do this. This meant she waited four weeks longer than she should have done. This brought the total delay experienced to two months.
24. ICE explained that DWP had apologised to Mrs Y for its delays and had provided her with a payment of £100. It said DWP’s payment was ‘suitable redress’ and did not consider any further payment was appropriate. Mrs Y disagrees. She says the financial uncertainty and stress she experienced should warrant a higher sum.
25. Much of Mrs Y’s dissatisfaction seems to stem from her view that DWP caused its own delays. She says this was initially because it did not check information with her about working in Ireland (which she had not) and then because it knew about the increase in information requests for NI contributions given a press focus around it at that time. We acknowledge that this might be the case and that it would likely add to any frustration and concern she experienced in waiting for DWP to respond.
26. While we realise that the reasons for the delays Mrs Y experienced are important to her, it is the length of the delay that is considered when proposing a financial payment rather than the reasons behind this. That said, we recognise that Mrs Y’s frustration would likely be increased by the cause of the delays.
27. The £100 DWP paid Mrs Y falls within the range set out within its Guidance. ICE felt that the £100 fairly reflected the impact of DWP’s delays.
28. Mrs Y complains of financial uncertainty during this time. We have no doubt this was the case as she was waiting initially to see whether her State Pension claim would be accepted, and then to hear about making voluntary NI contributions. Until she had this information, she would not be able to make informed decisions. That said, we are mindful that DWP told Mrs Y there would be a period of delay while it considered her information. DWP’s actions caused an additional two month delay.
29. We acknowledge £100 is towards the lower end of the specified range and that Mrs Y is unhappy with this. This payment is in line with the financial redress guidance so there are no indications DWP got anything wrong or that it should provide a higher payment. Therefore, we will take no further action.
1. We have carefully considered Mrs Y’s complaint about DWP. We are sorry to hear about the worry and frustration she has experienced in finding out about her State Pension entitlement.
2. We did not see that DWP did anything wrong when it considered the level of consolatory payment to Mrs Y.